Tuesday, May 01, 2007

Happy Birthday, Andrew Madison Rove

We're not sure exactly when Andrew Rove turned 18, and when we called to ask, the White House transferred us to VoiceMail, but here's why we think he's an adult now:

-

1. He graduated from high school in Spring 2006

2. He was supposedly at Trinity University in Texas, though we can't confirm.

3. He's also been reported as being 19 years old.

-

We welcome any official correction from the White House or any knowledgeable party, which must include the month in which Andrew Rove will be indisputably an adult [say, the month after his birthday]. We don't want, or need, to know the exact date.

-

But the bottom line is simple: Has Karl Rove encouraged his son Andrew to consider volunteering for military service in the Global War on Terror, even if he plans another career later in life?

-

If so, then we thank Mr. Rove for doing all he can and will leave it up to Andrew to make his own decision, for which he alone is responsible.

The "why don't you enlist" is a stupid argument. That's why my answer is "why don't you become a human shield?"

What are you saying when you say "why don't you enlist?" You're saying that if they believe in the war so much they should be willing to serve and take a chance of dying. Well, if you're opposed to the war so much you should be willing to become a human shield and take a chance that you'll be killed. Don't ask someone else to risk their lives for what they believe in when you aren't willing to do the same.

And besides, the "rw" poster is right; It's not your concern what they may or may not discuss. MYOB when it comes to these things.

"Don't ask someone else to risk their lives for what they believe in when you aren't willing to do the same."

Are you kidding, anon? This is the most gutless statement I've heard since Cheney admitted to having "other priorities" during the Vietnam War. It's tragically comical that you, an obvious wingnut, are asking SOMEONE ELSE to risk their life for a cause that YOU may be elligible to participate in. But I guess you have "other priorities".

"It's all well and good to do this from the anonymity of the internet...but like so many other liberals, faced with the opportunity to say it to his face, you'd be a gutless coward." -Anonymous

Now this is true comedy. A wingnut bitching about "liberals" blogging with anonymity has commented anonymously. You're dismissed.

I find the repeated claim that those who favor the war politically have no obligation to take any real action in support of it, even action that would involve little or no physical danger to themselves*, to be ridiculous. The absurdity is heightened when the inaction is compared to this blogger's failing to be a human shield. I suppose the 101st Fighting Keyboardists have no ability to distinguish between A's thinking that the war in Iraq is stupid adventurism that wastes American lives and money, and B's thinking that Shiite death militias should be protected from the U.S. army. (Wait, have the 101st figured out that Iraq isn't a single mass of undifferentiated Muslims yet?) That's modern conservative politics for you: avoiding unnecessary, expensive foreign entanglements = aid to sectarian murderers. Somewhere, William F. Buckley is shaking his head and ordering another drink.

The reference to helping AIDS victims in Africa is marginally better, but not much. Let me break it down for conservatives:

1) We are at an actual shortage of people who are willing to serve in Iraq. We are seeing desertions and deliberate self-injuries among those who face doing another tour there; we are seeing an infusion of felons into our military and other lowering of standards because we are scraping the bottom of the barrel. Let me know when the Peace Corps has to threaten people with prison to keep them in the field, or when Doctors Without Borders knowingly recruits alcoholics and druggies. And I would love to see the lawsuit in which Franklin Graham gets sued for asking Samaritan's Purse volunteers to stay an extra 18 months beyond their initial commitment.

2) The military can shape anyone who is within fairly loose parameters of physical, mental and emotional fitness into a servicemember. Even someone who may be deemed unfit for combat can serve in a support role -- as women, officially barred from combat, are getting killed and captured doing.

Aid operations in foreign countries are far more demanding. One must have a useful skill, whether in medical care, engineering, agriculture, the local languages, charity fundraising... there are many ways to help, but the high school dropouts who are eligible for the military would be utterly useless in African aid work. I've considered becoming a JAG officer, but I've never considered doing aid work in Africa because I would be no help at all. I'm bad at languages; there are people with more advanced economics degrees than mine already arguing what's best for Africa; the JD is only useful for the war crimes tribunals, which also are overstaffed with people better educated in international and human rights law than I. Even when Karl Rove himself was 20 years younger and 50 lbs lighter, and thus well able to serve in the military, he'd be a deadweight for foreign aid work because he lacks useful skills. Bamboozling voters might be helpful to a tinpot dictator, but not to the people suffering under his rule.

At the moment, Andrew Madison Rove probably couldn't do any good for an HIV+ woman trying to find a source of clean drinking water to use for mixing formula for her newborn. However, he could go into basic training and relieve from duty a soldier who may be on his fourth tour.

* Hey those of you who are physicians -- we're now at the point in the VA hospitals that they're letting people with foreign training, who otherwise would be ineligible to practice in the U.S., be doctors for the vets -- ever thought of taking a break from a highly-paid private practice to care for those who have served their country?